Thursday, March 30, 2006

The bill aims to give same-sex couples equal legal rights with married couples. It expects the bill to be passed in May. But it has caused a furore in Federal Parliament.

In a letter to Mr Stanhope, Mr Ruddock said the Government considered same-sex relationships were matters for the states and territories.

But it opposed "any action which would reduce the status of marriage to that of other relationships, or which would create confusion over the distinction between marriage and same-sex relationships".

Mr Ruddock warned that "the Government would take appropriate action, including the introduction of legislation, to prevent this occurring'.

The Commonwealth has no problem with state laws giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. But it objects to the use of marriage celebrants — licensed under federal marriage laws — performing civil union ceremonies, which the ACT bill appears to allow for as well as all other provisions that equate civil unions with marriage.

The bill aims to give same-sex couples equal legal rights with married couples. It expects the bill to be passed in May. But it has caused a furore in Federal Parliament.

In a letter to Mr Stanhope, Mr Ruddock said the Government considered same-sex relationships were matters for the states and territories.

But it opposed "any action which would reduce the status of marriage to that of other relationships, or which would create confusion over the distinction between marriage and same-sex relationships".

Mr Ruddock warned that "the Government would take appropriate action, including the introduction of legislation, to prevent this occurring'.

The Commonwealth has no problem with state laws giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. But it objects to the use of marriage celebrants — licensed under federal marriage laws — performing civil union ceremonies, which the ACT bill appears to allow for as well as all other provisions that equate civil unions with marriage.

It is incredibly sad that same sex couples are not enabled the same rights as straight married couples.

I've been thinking a lot about same sex issues such as marriage lately. It's something I strongly believe in, so what's stopped me from blogging about it?

In some way I feel that as a straight individual I don't have the right to talk about it. I can't really explain it. Lately though i've realised how ridicilous it is. It's like saying a man has no place defending feminism. Besides this is not just gay rights, it is also human rights!

Banning gay marriage and even worse in our sad little state of a country inadequate recognition of civil unions is discrimination.

Human rights in the way of gay issues has such a long long way to go. Sadly I don't think I will have any more chance of seeing a openly gay prime minister as I will a female prime minister of this country. In fact there is probably more of a chance of a female prime minister (think amanda vandstone-ughhhhhhhhhh) than a openly gay one.

1 comment:

Thank you for this informations. I'm not a pro-marriage but think that if heteros can do it, there is no reason gays can't. In France, gays can't get married, even if they try to get access to it (for a few years, now). It's a real movment in Europe (the situation in Spain is better than ours).The government invented something else : the PACS, which isn't a marriage, but can give some advantages (not all) of the marriage, and can be broken more easily. Gays and heteros can do it, and many times they do it for questions of taxes or jobs (less taxes, and jobs nearer of the city you live).